Big Porter Ranch Project Receives Preliminary OK

Amid a swirl of controversy, the Los Angeles City Board of Referred Powers gave preliminary approval Wednesday to one of the largest and most complex land-use proposals in the city’s history, a $2-billion commercial and residential construction plan for the Porter Ranch section of Chatsworth.

The unanimous decision by four board members sent to the City Council’s Planning and Environment Committee a proposal to build about 3,000 residences and nearly 6 million square feet of commercial space in the undeveloped hills of Porter Ranch.

“It’s well thought out,” City Councilman Hal Bernson, a Porter Ranch supporter and chairman of the Board of Referred Powers, said of the plan. “Controversial, yes, but I think in the final analysis, I had to wrestle between creating some animosity toward myself and doing what is appropriate for the community.”

The 4-0 vote was an early but partial victory for the Porter Ranch proposal, which must receive approval from the council’s Planning Committee and, later, the full council before construction can begin.

The ruling came on the same day that City Council members Joel Wachs and Joy Picus, in an action prompted by one Porter Ranch controversy, called for divestiture by city planning commissioners of all property they own within city boundaries.

Reason for Measure

According to Wachs and Picus, the divestiture proposal was prompted by a conflict-of-interest case that barred the commission from hearing the mammoth Porter Ranch proposal.

Their measure, which would force the five current commissioners to choose between owning land in the city or serving on the board, joins a number of other ethical reforms under consideration by city officials.

Some members of the Board of Referred Powers, which is made up of five council members who take on matters that pose a conflict for other city boards, appeared reluctant to take on the Porter Ranch case Wednesday.

Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky said he was “flabbergasted” by the city attorney’s ruling earlier this month to disqualify the Planning Commission because of Theodore Stein Jr.’s partial ownership of a subdivision near Porter Ranch. Other city officials, however, said the disqualification was required by the City Charter.

The Board of Referred Powers has ruled on 12 planning cases since 1987 because of conflicts of interest among commissioners, Wachs said.

At stake in Porter Ranch is one of the largest development projects in the city’s history. Its developer is Beverly Hills builder Nathan Shapell, a noted philanthropist, political contributor and chairman of the state’s watchdog Little Hoover Commission.

3,000 Residences

Shapell’s Porter Ranch Development Co. wants to build about 3,000 residences and the commercial complex. The proposal, endorsed by a citizens committee, calls for a shopping mall and office buildings as high as 10 stories. It would be built over a 20- to 30-year period on 1,300 acres of vacant land in the gently rolling foothills of the Santa Susana Mountains.

Although city planners and Bernson, who represents the area, support most of the project, controversy has developed because of opposition to its size.

And in addition to criticisms that the project would generate what residents call an intolerable level of traffic congestion, it has also been enveloped in the cloud of ethical concerns being raised at City Hall.

After the Planning Commission was disqualified by the city attorney’s office, the residents group, called PRIDE, tried unsuccessfully to have Bernson disqualified from sitting on the board of Referred Powers and the Planning and Environment Committee, which he also heads.

Since 1982, Bernson has received $50,380 from the Porter Ranch developers, their consultants and related companies and individuals, according to an analysis of campaign records by The Times.

Bernson chairs the Planning and Environment Committee, and the council tends to defer to the wishes of individual council members on development issues in their districts.

For that reason, supporters believe--and opponents fear--that the councilman’s backing will ensure ultimate approval by the full council.